[hourago]

> “Our own hope is that, through AI, we can eventually approximate a 1:1 teacher:student ratio for every student in CS50, as by providing them with software-based tools that, 24/7, can support their learning at a pace and in a style that works best for them individually,”

Is the goal to improve students learning or to reduce cost? The article does not even mention it. And I think that it is important to state the goal to know if the technology succeeds or fails. Too many "new technologies" are promoted by salesmen that move posts as soon as it fails and claim victory for things that nobody asked for.

[local_crmdgeon]

Harvard is one a few institutions that's effectively not resource constrained. I believe them when they say this

[hgsgm]

Harvards resources are spent mostly on paying investment managers and acquiring real estate, not teaching.

[danuker]

Clearly the goal of this particular technology at this point in time is to reduce cost. AIs scale very cheaply.

I believe that, for now, AI teaches worse than human teachers. But we are rapidly reaching human level, and might surpass it quite soon (a few years). At that point, AIs will dominate in both cost and quality.

[copperx]

> AI teaches worse than human teachers.

As a teacher, I wouldn't say dare say that. There are many teachers who are abysmal, and even if you get a brilliant one, you don't get to take them home so they can help you understand a concept while studying at 1 am.

Just yesterday, I was reading a history of mathematics textbook for fun where I had trouble with an explanation that wasn't worded too clearly in a book. I got my questions answered in a few minutes with GPT4.